Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
Floor Speech
OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 -- (Senate - March 05, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 635, AS MODIFIED
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have made no secret of the fact that the appropriations bill we have in front of us today is one that I think is way too large relative to what we should be doing in light of the fact that 2 weeks ago we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill which will fund many of the same programs that are funded under this appropriations bill.
This appropriations bill creates an increase of 8.3 percent in funding over last year's appropriated level, which is the largest increased appropriation, year over year, that we have seen since the Carter administration. In fact, an 8.3-percent increase represents more than twice the rate of inflation.
Most Americans and families today are trying to survive and live at a time when they are dealing with diminishing revenue coming into their households and certainly are not getting an increase that is the same as the rate of inflation. We have an appropriations bill in front of us today that is more than twice the rate of inflation. So I would daresay the Federal Government is certainly not leading by example when it comes to tightening our belts. I think when American families are struggling to make ends meet and tightening their belts, it is important that we also do the same thing, and this appropriations bill is anything but that. The 8.3-percent increase, as I said, is more than twice the rate of inflation and represents the largest year-over-year increase in appropriations since the Carter administration.
Having said that, I expect at the end of the day it is probably going to pass in the Senate. What we have tried to do as we have debated it is make improvements in it and address different priorities all of us bring to this debate.
I have one in particular that I think needs to be adopted, an amendment that needs to be adopted. It is filed, it is pending at the desk, and hopefully we will have a vote on it later today. What it does is reduce discretionary spending throughout the bill by $400 million, which equals the fiscal year 2009 authorized amount from PEPFAR.
Now, PEPFAR was an emergency--well, the PEPFAR itself was the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act, which passed last year. But the Emergency Fund for Indian Safety and Health was established as part of that legislation. It was an authorization. And of the $50 billion that was authorized in the so-called PEPFAR bill, $2 billion of that was set aside to address what are very urgent needs on America's Indian reservations, the argument being that there are needs that are great abroad, other places around the world, but we have some very urgent and pressing needs right here at home. So the $2 billion authorization was a 5-year authorization, which would represent $400 million each year, and what my amendment would do is simply fund at $400 million that first-year level of authorization that was created by the PEPFAR legislation we passed last fall.
In order to do that, because there wasn't any funding for the emergency fund for Indian safety and health in the underlying bill, we have to find the money somewhere else. What my amendment does, very simply, is reduce by one-tenth of 1 percent each program funded in the bill. So bear in mind, you have an 8.3-percent increase over last year's appropriated level in the base bill. With my amendment, what you would do is reduce the 8.3-percent increase each of these programs would receive in this bill to 8.2 percent and take that one-tenth of 1 percent and distribute it into this emergency fund for Indian safety and health, which was created as part of the PEPFAR legislation that we passed last fall. It is done in a very straightforward way. It distributes money where it is needed most.
Keep in mind it doesn't do anything to the significant funding that was included for many of these same programs that received a portion of the stimulus bill funding we passed a couple of weeks ago.
Why is this important to people in Indian Country? There are a number of reasons because what that authorization did is, it allowed money, money that would come through appropriated funds later after it was authorized, to be used for three purposes: One is law enforcement, public safety; one is Indian Health Service and health care on reservations; the third one was water development. We separated those out in the bill and allocated a certain amount of funding to each of those particular categories.
The reason that is so important is because in many places, particularly on Indian reservations, these very basic needs many of us take for granted are not being met. Nationwide, 1 percent of the U.S. population doesn't have access to safe and adequate drinking water and sanitation needs. On Indian reservations, if you can believe this--I said 1 percent is the average across America. On the Nation's Indian reservations that number climbs to 11 percent, and in some parts of Indian Country, the worst parts in terms of not having access to some of these necessities that most people expect--water and sanitation services--that number climbs to 35 percent. Lack of reliable safe drinking water leads to high incidences of disease and infection. The Indian Health Service estimates for each $1 it spends on safe drinking water and sewage systems, it receives a twentyfold return in the form of health benefits.
The Indian Health Service estimates in order to provide all Native Americans with safe drinking water and sewage systems, they would need--this is the backlog--over $2.3 billion. What we are talking about represents a small amount of what the need is that exists out there, but that being said, we could go a long way, by enacting this amendment, toward meeting that need.
With respect to health care, nationally Native Americans are three times as likely to die from diabetes as compared to the rest of the population. An individual who is served by the Indian Health Service is 50 percent more likely to commit suicide than the general population. An individual who is served by the Indian Health Service is 6.5 times more likely to suffer an alcohol-related death than the general population.
On the Oglala Sioux Reservation in my State of South Dakota, the average life expectancy for males is 56 years old. I want you to compare that with some other countries around the world. In Iraq, the average life expectancy for a male is 58. In Haiti, it is 59 years. In Ghana, the average life expectancy for a male is 60 years old--all higher than right here in America. On the Oglala Sioux Reservation in my home State of South Dakota, the average life expectancy for males is 56.
In South Dakota, between 2000 and 2005, Native American infants were more than twice as likely to die as nonnative infants. In South Dakota, a recent survey found that 13 percent of Native Americans suffer from diabetes. This is twice the rate of the general population, where only about 6 percent suffer from the same disease.
With respect to public safety, one out of every three Native American women will be raped in their lifetimes. According to a recent Department of Interior report, tribal jails are so grossly insufficient when it comes to cell space that only half of the offenders who should be incarcerated are being put in jail. That same report found that constructing or rehabilitating only those detention centers that are the most in need would cost $8.4 billion. Again, it is way more than what we are talking about here. But, certainly, what we could do today, in the form of this amendment, would be to put a downpayment on and begin to address what is a very serious need of adequate space for people who have committed crimes.
The South Dakota attorney general released a study at the end of last year on tribal criminal justice statistics. That study found that homicide rates on South Dakota reservations are almost 10 times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota. Forcible rapes on South Dakota reservations
are seven times higher than those found in the rest of South Dakota. These are all things that statistically point to the very serious public safety needs that exist on America's Indian reservations today and point to the importance of us adopting the amendment I will put before the Senate and have a vote on later today.
These critical, unmet needs have consequences in the day-to-day operations for tribal courts and law enforcement. I talked about public safety, how that translates. You see all the statistics and data. That is stunning enough. But then you talk about how that actually impacts a lot of our reservations. I will give a couple examples.
At the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court, a tribe that is a supporter of the amendment, on June 19, 2008, the tribal prosecutor scheduled to attend court proceedings that day did not appear at court. Alarmed, the tribal judge sent a court employee to the police department to ensure the prosecutor was not hurt in an accident. Once it was clear the prosecutor was not injured but instead did not show, all cases scheduled that day had to be dismissed because no replacement prosecutor was available. Cases that were dismissed that day included sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and DUIs.
At Standing Rock Reservation, another example, another reservation that borders or crosses the line in South Dakota and North Dakota--in early 2008, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation had six police officers to patrol a reservation that is geographically the size of Connecticut.
This meant during any given shift there was only one officer on duty to cover that entire area. One day the only dispatcher on the reservation was out sick. This left only one police officer to act both as a first responder and also as the dispatcher. Not only did this directly impact the officer's ability to patrol and respond to emergencies, it also prevented him from appearing in tribal court to testify at a criminal trial.
Later in the year I was able to work with my Senate colleagues in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to bring additional police officers to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation through Operation Dakota Peacekeeper. That operation, which was a success, was only possible because of the Bureau of Indian Affairs being able to dramatically increase the number of law enforcement officials on the reservation during what we referred to as the surge. This dramatic increase in officers was only possible because the Bureau had been given additional public safety and justice funds in 2008, something I would like to continue with my amendment.
The way these dollars would be used, if my amendment is accepted, also is spelled out in the amendment. It is actually spelled out in the statute, the authorization bill. But the $400 million would be distributed as follows: $200 million will go to congressionally approved water settlements; $150 million will go to public safety and justice; $74 million for detention facility construction, rehabilitation, and placement through the Department of Justice; $62 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs public safety and justice account which funds tribal police and tribal courts; $6 million for investigations and prosecution of crimes in Indian Country by the FBI and the U.S. attorneys; $6 million would go to the Department of Justice Office of Justice Program for Indian and Alaska Native Programs; $2 million for cross-deputization or other cooperative agreements between State, local, and tribal governments; $50 million to health care which would be divided as the Director of Indian Health Services determines between contract health services, construction and rehabilitation of Indian health facilities, and domestic and community sanitation facilities serving Indian tribes.
Passage of the original amendment to PEPFAR, which occurred last year, showed a commitment by the Senate on a bipartisan basis to address these domestic priorities that are faced by Native Americans in Indian Country. That was a bill that had, and the amendment I offered to that bill had, bipartisan cosponsorship. There were a number of people on both sides of the aisle who supported it. Vice President Biden was a supporter. Secretary of State Clinton was a cosponsor of the amendment. A number of colleagues have supported the effort we made to demonstrate a commitment to addressing these very serious needs, which I have alluded to that exist today in Indian Country.
What my amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill before us does is ensures the underlying bill, the bill that we authorized, actually gets funded, and the dollars we committed are actually appropriated for the purpose of addressing these very serious needs.
I ask that when this comes to a vote, amendment No. 635, my colleagues support it in the same sort of bipartisan way we were able to support the underlying authorization that was approved last year. There is no greater need. The statistics in Indian Country, both in South Dakota and other reservations in other States, are dire. We, as the Senate, have a responsibility to address those needs, particularly at a time when we are already funding or going to pass a bill which increases spending in this appropriations bill by as much as it does.
One-tenth of 1 percent is all we are saying would be necessary to provide the $400 million that is necessary to fund this amendment and the important priorities it would serve.
I hope my colleagues will be able to support it.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might respond to the remarks of the distinguished chairman, and I understand what I am doing here may create some technicality with regard to the budget rules, but we do this all the time, and we routinely waive the budget. The only reason it does is because it does take that one-tenth of 1 percent from across the entire nine appropriations bills as opposed to taking it out of one particular appropriations bill. What that does is attempts to distribute that reduction across the board so no one area is hurt in a significant way relative to the others.
But, again, I would simply point out--and I appreciate what the chairman said about these other areas in the budget, these programs being cut--bear in mind, this is an 8.3-percent increase, year over year, over last year's appropriated level in all these accounts. There is not any account in this appropriations bill that is receiving a cut. They are all receiving an increase.
The question is, Will it be an 8.3-percent increase or an 8.2-percent increase? What I am simply saying is, you make it an 8.2-percent increase and use that one-tenth of 1 percent to fund a program this Congress, this Senate voted to authorize last year, specifically, for Indian health care, for water development, and for public safety on our reservations. Of course, there is funding in the underlying bill for some of these things, but none of which is adequate to address the need, which is precisely why so many of the reservations in my State have the high incidents of crime, the data they have in terms of the many areas I mentioned. When it comes to prosecutions, when it comes to detention facilities, when it comes to law enforcement personnel and officers, we are deficient in the responsibility we have.
So, again, it is not a question of whether all the programs that are funded in the bill are going to get an increase. They are all going to get an increase, a substantial increase. Under my amendment, it is simply an 8.2-percent increase as opposed to an 8.3-percent increase.
It seems to me, at least, the least we can do to honor the commitment we made by passing the emergency fund for Indian safety and health we passed last year is to provide funding for it.
So I appreciate the chairman's observations. I would simply ask my colleagues to look beyond whatever technicality may be raised with regard to where the one-tenth of 1 percent is coming from. It is coming from all nine appropriations bills across the board as opposed to from one particular area or account. But that, to me, seems to be the fair way in which to do this in a way that distributes that one-tenth of 1 percent reduction evenly. So I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might briefly respond to the Senator from California regarding my amendment that deals with Indian health, public safety, and water development.
I think it is important to remind everybody, first of all, that this bill we have in front of us and the appropriations bills that have been passed so far--three of them passed last year--nine of them are bundled into this bill--this bill was written behind closed doors. There wasn't any participation by Members, at least that I know of, on our side when it came to putting this together and offering amendments at the committee level. The only opportunity we have to offer amendments is when a bill comes to the floor of the Senate.
Now, it shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody here in the Chamber or anybody who is tuning in to what is going on here that that is what we do. We offer amendments. We determine priorities. We move money around within appropriations bills. To suggest for a minute that we shouldn't be offering amendments to move money from one part of this bill to another part of the bill, the fact is that nine appropriations bills have been bundled together and we are being asked to vote on $410 billion in spending at one time, and then we are being told we can't come down here and offer amendments. That is what we do. We have 100 Senators. All of them come to this Chamber with different priorities. I came down here and said I wanted to offer an amendment that took a one-tenth of 1 percent haircut across all nine appropriations bills, evenly distributed, to take $400 million and put it into a program that Congress authorized last fall but has not funded that would address the needs of Indian health care, public safety, and water development--critical needs on Indian reservations.
I urge any of my colleagues who haven't visited a reservation to come to South Dakota and see what I am talking about. I mentioned it earlier. The average life expectancy for males on the Oglala Sioux Reservation in my home State of South Dakota is 56 years. It is 58 in Iraq, 59 in Haiti, and 60 in Ghana, all higher than right here in America. Between 2000 and 2005, Native American infants were more than twice as likely to die as non-native infants. I already mentioned the public safety statistics and the crime data that exist on our reservations because we don't have adequate law enforcement personnel, we don't have cops, we don't have prosecutors, we don't have jails, we don't have all the things that are necessary to keep our people safe on our reservations in South Dakota.
Here may be a budget technicality, a point of order that can be raised against my amendment which will require that we have to have 60 votes for my amendment, but all that means is instead of getting 51, we need 60. I can't imagine that we would not have an opportunity--nine appropriations bills being bundled together, brought to the floor of the Senate, $410 billion in spending--to come down here and offer amendments that move money around. That is what Senators do. That is what we do in the Senate.
I hope my colleagues will look past the point of order that is going to be raised and say: One-tenth of 1 percent in a bill that is being increased by 8.3 percent year over year; go for this important priority on Indian reservations across our country.
I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment or vote to waive the point of order.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 635
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on the motion to waive the point of order relating to amendment No. 635, as modified, offered by Senator Thune.
The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, lest there be any confusion, I filed this amendment on Monday and made it pending on Tuesday, and I spoke to it then. It is simple. Last July, the Senate, in the debate on the PEPFAR bill, voice voted an amendment to that bill that created a $2 billion, 5-year authorization for an emergency fund for Indian health and safety. All my amendment does is fund it, $400 million. It wasn't funded in the bill. I paid for it by taking a one-tenth of 1 percent across-the-board reduction in the entire bill to put the $400 million into this fund, which is necessary to fund this important program for Indian health and safety. That means the increase in the bill won't be 8.3 percent, it will be 8.2 percent. Contrary to what was stated, it increases Indian health care by $23 million. It was stated that it would reduce the health care account by a little over a million dollars. Congress authorized it last summer.
I hope my colleagues will vote to waive the budget.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source